Mark a completed Google Task as active again when follow-up work or action is still needed.
Mark a completed task as needing action again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Google task ID; obtain it from list_tasks | |
| task_list_id | Yes | Google task list ID; obtain it from list_task_lists |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the specific state change (completed → needing action), which is useful, but doesn't disclose side effects like whether subtasks or completion dates are affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without any redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation, the description combined with annotations and schema is nearly complete. It could mention whether reopening resets any completion metadata, but for a basic status toggle it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (task_id and task_list_id). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Mark') and the exact state transition ('completed task as needing action again'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like complete_task and update_task. An agent can immediately understand the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the task must already be completed ('a completed task'), providing clear context, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., use update_task for other changes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.